3 Popular Myths of Isandlwana – 1879 Zulu War

The Battle of Isandlwana on the 22nd of January 1879 was one of the most devastating defeats suffered by Britain at the hands of local inhabitants.

The clash between British Troops and Zulu Warriors led to a brutal battle that has been retold numerous times, however much of the tale has proven to have more basis in fiction than facts:

1. ‘Men of Harlech’

According to the enduringly popular 1964 movie Zulu, the 24th Regiment – who comprised much of the garrison at both Isandlwana and Rorke’s Drift – was composed largely of Welshmen. Although the Regiment had indeed established its depot at Brecon in 1873, its recruits continued to be drawn from across the United Kingdom, and only a small proportion were Welsh by 1879. The association with Wales largely post-dates the Anglo-Zulu War – in 1881, the 24th were re-titled the South Wales Borderers, and it is now part of the Royal Welsh.

2. Ammunition failure

One particularly persistent legend has it that the British were overrun at Isandlwana because of a failure of ammunition supply, either through the parsimony of regimental quartermasters, or because their ammunition boxes could not be opened – an idea which, of course, effectively excuses a number of deeper military errors.

One of the survivors – a lieutenant named Horace Smith-Dorrien, who was destined to become a general in the First World War – recalled the reluctance of Quartermaster Edward Bloomfield of the 2nd Battalion, the 24th, to issue ammunition as the battle began. Yet a close reading of the evidence suggests that this incident was simply indicative of the confusion that inevitably prevailed in the camp; Bloomfield’s reserves were, in fact, earmarked to be sent out to Lord Chelmsford should he need them, and Bloomfield was showing no more than a proper respect for his orders.

In a letter home, Smith-Dorrien admitted to his father that he afterwards secured a supply of ammunition and spent much of the battle distributing it to the front-line companies. Nor were the boxes particularly difficult to open – although reinforced by copper bands all round, access to the rounds was by means of a sliding panel in the lid held in place by a single screw. And if time was pressing, the panel could be smashed out by a sharp blow to the edge with a tent-mallet or rifle butt – over the years, a number of screws bent by such rough treatment have been found on the battlefield.

In 2000, an archaeological survey of the site found the remains of the tin lining of a number of boxes along the British firing positions – sure sign that boxes had been opened there. Last word, however, should go to the Zulus, many of whom mentioned that the British infantry continued to shoot at them until the final stages of the battle.
3. Drummer boys ‘gutted like sheep’
One story that circulated widely in the horrific aftermath of the battle was thatLord Chelmsford’s men, returning to the devastated camp on the night of the 22nd, had seen ‘young drummer boys’ of the 24th Regiment hung up
on a butcher’s scaffold and ‘gutted like sheep’While it need not be doubted that, in the fury of the attack, theZulus would have killed boys as well as men – they had taken the Queen’s shilling, after all, and their chances with it – this horror story does not stand up to close scrutiny.

‘Boy’ was a rank in the British Army at the time, applied to lads not yet 18, many of whom were the sons of men serving in the regiment. Drummers were seldom Boys – among their other duties was administering floggings as punishment – and of 12 Drummers killed at Isandlwana, the youngest was 18 and the oldest in his 30s. Five Boys were killed at Isandlwana, most of them in the 24th’s band, and the youngest was 16 – not quite the innocent lads immortalised in sentimental paintings of the time.

Even the contemporary regimental history of the 24th admitted ‘no single case of torture was proved against [the Zulus]’. But, in the fraught atmosphere that prevailed when Lord Chelmsford’s command returned to the camp that night, such horror stories spread like wild fire and were readily believed –although, as one officer pointed out, ‘it was impossible for those who told these yarns to distinguish anything in the night, it being exceptionally dark’.

They were great warriors but just not good enough. They only one this single first battle where losses were not that far apart (1300 British for 1000 Zulus). The Empire learnt the lesson and comprehensively defeated the Zulu in every subsequent engagement (Rorke’s drift 350 Zulus killed, 500 wounded for only 17 British killed and 15 wounded). Total casualties of the Zulu wars were 1727 British killed and well over 6000 Zulus. After years of domination, enslavement and conquest of many innocent African tribes it was the British who soundly defeated the Zulu and ended their independent nation.

Thank you – I stand corrected on Hlobane and the small engagement at Ntombe Drift; I am always keen to learn. Eshowe was a British victory though. Bottom line is we see people waxing lyrical on the rare Zulu victories but stunning victories won by b rave British soldiers remain anonymous.

Mdu – it is not audacious in the least to compare military forces in a military history discussion. By the way, the Zulus were every bit as disciplined and well trained as the British at the time but they were just not good enough.

Please note that this is a military history forum and not a political one. Therefore, I suggest you keep your ill judged remarks about the British being thieves to a lower level discussion. I am not a thief and neither is my country. To judge people of 200 years ago against modern values is disingenuous. To be crystal clear, the Zulus were not innocent either as they expanded their empire through violence and ‘thievery’ of the lands of peoples they defeated, slaughtered and enslaved other tribes. It was just the way of the World back then so move on and get over it.

Sorry that you may not like when you are told the truth in your face. so you think this is a forum where you hide behind some rules you create to gloat about how your ancestors stole from and Massacred the ancestors of others? Why should I believe you that you are not a thieve when you ancestors have consistently demonstrated theft on such a scale over hundreds of years and not just in Africa? I don’t hear gloating about your military exploits during the crusade periods in the middle east here. why? I think I can guess why. The military and the political are inseparable because one comes after the other in any order.

The Zulus killed and stole from weker Africans to build their Empire as they butchered their way down from Natal. You are just a bit upset that the British gave them a taste of their own medicine and comprehensively defeated them

The British were taught a bitter lesson. Egged on by supposedly superior arms and technology, drunken on a brew of arrogance and unproven superiority towards native peoples, they got taught by savages on how not to be condescending. No excuses please, the better generals won.

It is disingenuous to judge people of the Victorian age by modern standards. The Victorians were empire builders in a long line of empires stretching back over 7000 years of history. The Zulus were not subjugated people living in their own country; they were empire builders too from central Africa but I don’t see them getting condemned. Please stop with the racist judgemental rubbish and stick to military history.

The Zulus learned the biggest lesson which was not to take on the Empire which comprehensively defeated the Zulu in every subsequent engagement (Rorke’s drift 350 Zulus killed, 500 wounded for only 17 British killed and 15 wounded). Total casualties of the Zulu wars were 1727 British killed and well over 6000 Zulus. After years of domination, enslavement and conquest of many innocent African tribes it was the British who soundly defeated the Zulu and ended their independent nation.

It was a usual Zulu ritual to slit open the bellies of their victims to release the dead person’s spirit and to prevent the body from exploding as it putrified in the heat. The reports after the battle state the bellies of dead British soldiers had been slit open but this was not as an act of mutilation but out of respect for the dead. No doubt this got distorted as these so called drummer boys were found in the same condition.

I think the most important aspect of the battle was the tragic heroism displayed by both sides. Why on earth were they killing each other? The British believed they were saving Natal from Zulu savagery. The Zulus believed they were protecting their sacred lands from foreign invasion. Overall, I tend to side with the Zulus. But could the whole issue have not been decided over a couple of beers, for God’s sake? There was surely room in the vast expanses of South Africa for everybody!

Absolute rubbish, Zulu sacred lands my ar*e! The Boers were in South Africa before the Zulus cam down from the North!!!! The Zulu empire met the British empire and only won this single battle – they lost the War and don’t you forget it.

The Dutch arrived in 1648 and settled first in 1652. The Zulus were founded in 1709 by Zulu kaNtombela. Their Nguni forbearers came from East Africa and migrated down over the centuries but they were not Zulus as we know it. Therefore, I am correct and do not need to wake up or stop day dreaming. If you wish to engage in a military history discussion then fine but do a bot or research before you comment on my posts please.

You are a Neo Imperialist piece of shit.No wonder why your Country is now suffering the backlash of his Colonial Greed in invading other Lands they had no business being in.When you travel for weeks in the Oceans to invade another Nation far away because you lust for their Resources,shows how messed up you are.The bad khama has come back to haunt you and your lame excuses don’t add up.Imperialism was and will always be a Whore.

The fella is just trying to Whitewash History by claiming the Dutch lived in the area before the Zulus.Last time I checked,The Dutch belonged to Holland ,which is in Europe.While the Zulus was a Tribe which Evolved from the Indigenous people who had settled in the Area Loooong before the Dutch even arrived in the area.Whitey likes to lie so as defend Imperialism.

Using the term whitey is offensive so please desist. People emigrate from their countries of origin all of the time. If the Boers don’t belong in Africa after centuries then not one black belongs in Europe. Silly person.

The British high technique ballistic missiles didn’t work on this particular day, what a surprise! Also there was a solar eclipse in the midst of the battle, a clear proof of Zulu “muthi” or portion at work.

Get a grip and grow up. Throughout history everybody everywhere attacked each other and stole and conquered or were conquered. After 1700 years of being attacked by Scandanavian and European powers the British fought back and started their own Empire. The fact your own warlike ancestors got their arses severely kicked is not my problem to deal with. Think yourself lucky that the British no longer want an Empire or you would get your disorganised racist arses kicked again

The Zulu nation left a great legacy.You will hear Zulu variants spoken from South Africa to the Congo,Rhodesias,and even in Tanganyika.They were also great strategists and tacticians.Their agriculture was also very advanced.A GREAT NATION.Although many have succumbed to vagrancy this is due to interference by the white man.

Why are we happy to talk about the Zulu’s legacy being great but ignore the positive impact of the British empire in setting the foundations (developed by the Boers) of South Africa which was the most advanced and developed of the African nations below the equator, if not the whole of Africa.